European Tribune

Display:
Why is it the same onshore andoff shore?  The environmental conditions seem radically different to me...  Do you think it is fair to say (to us, not your clients) that some of this is unknown and only time will tell?  

Please don't think anyone's questioning your judgement at all; we're just curious.  

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 03:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. turbines have been toughened for offshore conditions in order to have similar lifespans as onshore. Some have now been specifically designed for offshore. That includes better insulation/harmetic seals, etc..., and different procedures for access and maintenance.

  2. there is uncertainty even onshore for the newest, biggest turbines, as none has ever been in service that long. On the other hand, smaller but nevertheless similar models have, and experience is satisfactory. Plus, it's not like it's rocket science either. Mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and civil works are not exactly experimental technologies. and offshore work, especially in shallow areas not that far from the coast are not completely unheard of either

so what you say is fair, but a lot of people seem to think that these are reasonable risks to take.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 07:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the typical relative cost of the head+generator+blade relative to all the fixed location costs land termination+cable+fundations+tower for offshore turbine?

I guess lifespan affects more the top than the other part, hence somewhat dismishing the global risk.

by Laurent GUERBY on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 06:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the split does really go like this

per 1MW, you'll typically have
turbine + tower: EUR 1M
foundations : EUR 0.5M
cable : EUR 0.5-1M
other: 0.5-1.5M (electrical equipement, onshore cable, development, finance)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 04:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the data!

So the sexy "engineering" operational risk (turbine+blade stress) is limited to about 20-30% even if it falls down to replacing the whole top, with a premature replacement if needed probably bringing better efficiency and increase in life span.

The rest of the technology has been in place for a while for offshore oil and regular eletrical stuff so I think not really in the "risky" category.

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 02:37:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for answering, btw.

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
by poemless on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 04:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The nukes were supposed to last for 30-40 years, and in reality they'll stay for 60. Who knows what breakthroughs in material science or just plain over-engineering will do to the lifetime of wind mills?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Jul 19th, 2007 at 06:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And while salty air is a nasty environment, so is pressurised or boiling water combined with intense neutron bombrdment.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Jul 19th, 2007 at 07:18:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series